Unfriendly Fire

by Dr. Nathaniel Frank

  He had the most trouble explaining the policy to young sailors, who literally didn’t get it. “The officers who were significantly senior to me were the ones brought up to think of homosexuality as this deviant behavior that causes loss of morale,” he recalled. “Young kids these days grow up with kids who are gay. They know that they’re real people. They know that they’re not the ‘deviant’ people who have always been portrayed as being bad for morale. . . . The younger troops didn’t have a problem with the gay thing.” What really hurts morale, he said, was when you boot someone for being gay and it takes several months to get a replacement. “You have three guys on watch rotation of six hours on, twelve hours off; now you’re missing a person so they’re on six and off six. Talk about something that’s bad for morale. That kills morale to lose one of your team members because they happen to be gay.”7

  THESE CASES OF American service members who were out to their peers, even in the 1990s as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was first being implemented, are a part of a global body of evidence that an open environment actually breeds tolerance and readiness, not disruptions and disaster. That evidence has only mounted in the twenty-first century. Once the United States mobilized for war, sexual orientation became even less important. Throughout their tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, gay troops were out and about; and for the most part, they were tolerated and even embraced by straights who didn’t think twice about their sexuality, or, if they did, thought twice and moved on.

  According to interviews with gays and lesbians, coworkers “just don’t care” about whether their comrades are gay or lesbian, especially the younger ones. A staff sergeant noted that “enlisted soldiers are generally younger and more willing to accept new things” while “officers tend to look to regulations for guidance in soldiering,” and “are generally distanced from their soldiers and are therefore less likely to know that one of their soldiers is gay.” Another service member, an army specialist who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2003, said, “People my age, high school through my age, don’t care.” Her platoon sergeant also found out about her sexuality and fully tolerated it. “He said, ‘Well, don’t go tell the world, but I don’t really care; I’ll try to look out for you unless you’re a total piece of crap. Just don’t make it to where me looking out for you makes me look stupid.’ ” The specialist said she could “read people a bit and I can tell who it’s okay to be open with and who not.”8

  The examples go on and on: “Most of my unit does know I am gay and they don’t care one way or the other . . . that’s really the last thing on anyone’s mind.” “There was another gay guy in my squadron who was really good friends with my roommates, and they were really cool with it and so that kind of paved the way for me.” “Most of it’s accepted . . . it’s not a problem.” “I came out to a couple of coworkers and that went quite well.” “After I developed a strong relationship with my supervisor, we would talk about it [sexual orientation] and would even joke about it.” “If I told someone, it never changed our relationships . . . I was never looked at differently for being gay.” “Almost every one of my friends said, ‘Oh, we all knew that. What’s the big deal?’ ” When in port or off base, it is not uncommon for gays and straights to visit gay bars together. These service members, far from being divided by their differing sexual identities, come together to socialize in genuine and open ways. And more often than not, these men and women observe that form of bodily contact which so riles certain members of the military—that bodily contact that a “reasonable person” would “understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in” prohibited acts. Perhaps we should add this to the list of reasons why we haven’t yet won the war on terrorism?9

  The rationale for “don’t ask, don’t tell” rests on the assumption that straight men are intolerant of gay men. Surveys of women’s attitudes toward lesbians in the military show much greater willingness to tolerate gay women. In the latest surveys, a majority of military women actually support letting open gays serve. But a ban on gay men and not gay women would be a public relations nightmare. The result is that women are caught up in a ban whose rationale, such as it is, really only applies to men. A related oddity is that the policy can hamper the special bonds that are sometimes made between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men in the military. The privacy and unit cohesion rationales would never apply to these relationships. This is significant because gay people have historically confided in straight members of the opposite sex (think Will and Grace), forging important relationships that can be more comforting and less threatening than those among straight members of the same sex. Their shared objects of affection can even become a source of commonality. That means “don’t ask, don’t tell” deprives service members of the opportunity to forge such relationships. Or rather, it would if people followed it. “Guys loved me,” said Wendy Biehl, the army specialist who discussed her sexuality with straight men during deployment to the Middle East. “I had the best of both worlds,” she said, enjoying friendships with women, while “shar[ing] sexual secrets” with men. Biehl recounted how straight men asked her for sexual advice and they would bond over the women they found attractive. “They were like my brothers,” she said. “They’d stick up for me.”10

  Often it’s straight members of the opposite sex who break the ice and facilitate the meeting of gay people who might otherwise be hesitant to identify one another as gay. One sailor in the Pacific Fleet, for instance, said his female friend gave him the lowdown on a shy newcomer to the ship. The sailor had wondered if the new recruit might be gay, but decided it was too risky to ask him directly. According to the woman’s report, the shy sailor had “perked up” at hearing mention of the first sailor’s name, suggesting they might have something in common. “Looks like we have another rainbow warrior,” the sailor said with a grin.11

  Despite the ubiquity of open gay service, fear, not surprisingly, remains. But once the ice is broken, it often evaporates. An army specialist serving in a combat unit in Iraq was coming out of a gay bar when on leave in the states, and was spotted on the street by another soldier. “Cheapest drinks in the city,” said the specialist awkwardly, trying to explain away his presence at the bar. His fellow soldier wasn’t convinced. “So I told him,” the specialist recalled later, “and he said, ‘I don’t care.’ ” His combat unit, he said, was “as intimate as intimate can get,” and none ofthat changed once his sexuality was known. Back in Iraq, he slept in the same three to five cubic feet as his sergeant, surrounded by other men inside their tent. “It didn’t matter,” he said. “There wasn’t much of a question of, ‘Okay, this guy does this, would he do it here?’ ” When his sergeant during another tour learned of his sexuality, he told him he would not mention it to anyone. The specialist also described a gay soldier “who was girlier than any girl I knew. He was extremely flamboyant and nobody gave a shit.” A gay surgical technician on board the USS Abraham Lincoln said he works with gays who are so flamboyant that “we need an extinguisher.” He said one of his JAG officers “sashayed down the hangar bay, hand on the hip and everything,” and it did not create problems.12

  A squadron leader who commanded Bradley fighting vehicles in Iraq, and who also commanded a dismounted unit for the 4th Infantry Division, said he served openly with no problems. “I don’t advertise,” he said, “but I don’t hide anything either.” He said all nine of the soldiers who worked under him knew he was gay. “It doesn’t affect unit cohesion,” he said. “When I was on the ground, I was leading the charges through buildings,” he said. “And I’ve never had people not follow me. I’ve never heard of that happening at all,” referring to insubordination due to a leader’s sexual orientation.13

  ONE OF THE reasons that openly gay service turns out to work so well, it seems, is because of the judgment calls made by individual gay troops, based on the appropriateness of individual situations. Gays and lesbians explain that, while they feel the need to confide in someone about th
eir sexuality, they are careful to establish preliminary bonds of trust with confidantes, or to judge the probability of acceptance before coming out, and they choose to come out privately or quietly in moments that seem appropriate for intimate conversation.

  “I see myself as a good instinctive judge of character,” said an army captain, “and thankfully for me that’s turned out to be the case when I told my friends [that I’m gay].” On one occasion, when a date went longer than expected, the captain’s best friend hounded him about his whereabouts. After staving off the questions, he finally said, “I’m not going to lie to you, you’re my best friend. I went to meet a guy.” The captain’s friend nearly choked on his burrito, collected his thoughts, and then said, “That’s cool, but don’t expect me to be down with it because I’m not. Now let’s go get a beer.” The friendship has remained strong and the captain now baby-sits for his friend’s children.14 Such is an important illustration of the kind of reaction that could ensue even from those who may have indicated on surveys that they oppose letting gays serve in the military.

  Indeed, many service members describe an informal “don’t ask, don’t tell” norm prevailing among both gay and straight troops. This could be partly a product of the policy’s strictures on discussing the matter of sexuality. But the fact that so many gays and lesbians do come out to their peers in certain situations shows that the policy alone is not what governs their behavior; instead, decisions are shaped by individual judgments about when and to whom to reveal their sexual orientation. The same holds true of “asking”: One soldier, for instance, said that “many people are just not asking, not because of the ban but because it’s none of their business.” He said the custom was “don’t know, don’t want to find out.”15

  A final ingredient in explaining the success of openly gay service is good leadership. A petty officer first class in the navy described working with effeminate men who were known to be gay. He reported that these suspected or known gays worked successfully with their peers, in part, because of a tolerant and dedicated command structure. “Our commanders made it clear that anti-gay harassment would not be accepted,” he said. “And that’s why those effeminate men were accepted.” He said that tolerance was the product of “a climate that’s created,” just as evidence from foreign militaries suggests. “All they need to do is hear it from a higher-up. If you create a climate at a commanding officer level that [homosexuality] is acceptable, then I think everybody will fall in line.”16

  Unfortunately, the policy itself makes it virtually impossible even for strong leaders to make clear what expected behavior is in the ranks. Many gays and lesbians note that other troops assume or suspect they or other service members are gay. These findings are confirmed in a major poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, two-thirds of whom said they knew or suspected there were gays in their unit. Many of these troops said they could simply tell a person’s sexual orientation by observing “speech, behavior or appearance,” a reminder of the ultimate impossibility of regulating the expression of sexuality. Though such guesswork is an imperfect gauge of actual sexual orientation, the fact is that even when service members abide by “don’t tell” entirely, it’s often abundantly clear to people that there are gays in their midst, just as John McCain said in 2000, when he claimed he knew he served with gay people by their “behavior and by attitudes.”17 This means, too, that privacy cannot be protected by banning statements about homosexuality, since knowledge or suspicion of a person’s sexuality often emerges without actual statements to that effect.

  Of course, the best way to protect privacy is to create a climate in which individuals are expected to respect one another. And the reality is that most gays and lesbians, like straights, choose to share certain personal details about their lives with people they trust, but generally don’t wish to announce the details of their sex lives publicly, and have no intention of doing so if the policy is changed to technically allow it. A lifting of the ban would not result in a military awash in gay gossip and drag shows. It would simply allow the gays in the service to get on with their jobs, reduce their stress, remove impediments to productive work, and free them from needing to misrepresent and isolate themselves. None of us should be surprised to know that gays care about privacy, too.

  The Bradley commander made clear that he used discretion in choosing the people with whom he shared his sexual orientation. “You won’t see me walking in the gay pride parade,” he said, “but the people who need to know know, and the people that don’t, it’s none of their business.” A Marine said, “I don’t think that people should be going to work and announcing [their sexual orientation], but if it does come out I don’t think it should [matter].” A petty officer first class said if the ban were lifted, “I wouldn’t just tell people I’m gay, but I probably wouldn’t go through such measures to hide it.” “I wouldn’t come out just for the hell of it,” said another.18

  The Bradley commander’s experience also shows how attempting to regulate knowledge of sexual orientation is futile. Although he did not announce his sexuality publicly, “the stuff I do, it causes people to wonder.” He said when he lived in the barracks, “you can look at the visitor’s log and see that no women come in under my name.” His vocal opposition to derogatory statements about women, the placement of rainbow stickers in his room, and the lack of female visitors add up to a clear picture that he is gay, he said. “If you look at the whole big picture,” he concluded, “eventually people will start to wonder.” Those soldiers who didn’t know that he was gay “suspect that I am.” “People know by deduction,” agreed a navy pilot who has served since 1984. “You’re not married, you’re in your forties, all your friends are male, and you don’t talk about any personal or private life.”19

  A gay army captain was confident that changing the policy would not unleash a torrent of homosexual announcements. “Just lifting the ban, there’s not going to be a rainbow flag hoisted on the headquarters of the army,” he said. “All you’re doing by lifting the ban is allowing people not to live in secrecy.” If the ban were lifted, said another, “I don’t think I’d run and tell everyone at once.” He did, however, say the main reason he didn’t tell people was the fear that someone could turn him in. “If the law were overturned, I’d probably gradually come out to everyone,” he concluded, emphasizing that he would do so in a private manner.20

  “I’d be truthful as far as filling out documentation,” said a senior non-commissioned officer in the air force, about how things would change if the gag rule were lifted. “But as far as sticking a big old rainbow sticker on my car, [I wouldn’t do that].” At the same time, some did report that they had rainbow stickers on their belongings in public view, or that they had seen such stickers on base. Such signs are not allowed to be used to initiate an investigation into the sexuality of a service member.21

  A sailor, who described himself as inconspicuous with regard to his sexuality, said that most gays in the military blended in. “Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you have to be really queeny,” he said. “I’m not like that and most of the time, people aren’t.” He added that if people were to see him walking down the street, “they’d be like, who’s that boring guy dressed in jeans and a T-shirt?”22

  Not only do gays serve openly without causing problems; they report that when they can be honest about who they are, things get better. Bonds between gays and straights improved when suspicions and uncertainty were put to rest by a revelation or acknowledgment of their homosexuality. The Bradley commander described this evolution in his relationship to the gunner who served on his crew. “Prior to us being a crew,” he recalled, “I wouldn’t associate with him at all.” The gay squad leader had reason to believe the gunner might not be fully accepting of homosexuality. “Then we became a crew, and we became friends. When he actually found out, when I was actually able to open up to him, things got better in the sense that I’m able to be myself and he accepts me and that’s cool and he e
ven asks me about my partner now.” The gay soldier concluded that serving openly “brought me and my soldiers closer together because now they know who I am. I’m a little bit more confident about myself because now I don’t have to walk around with this big ape on my back and we’re just that much closer and I don’t have to feel afraid of talking to them about what’s going on in my life.” A former army staff sergeant agreed, saying that “it became easier to talk to people once I was open with them.” A supply specialist who served in Iraq—and whose tour was extended because of stop-loss orders—said his service would have been improved if he had enjoyed the freedom to discuss his personal life. “I mean, these are your best friends,” he said. “These are people you live with, you die with. How easy it would have been to say, hey, I’m gay, this is who I sleep with. I think it would have just brought us a hell of a lot closer.”23

  THE RESULT, HOWEVER, of trying to enforce a law that seeks to regulate what cannot, at bottom, be regulated is that the policy, which was routinely violated, came to be seen as a joke. Both the horror stories of abuse and wrecked careers and the lighter stories of rainbow warriors serving openly with no consequences yield the same result: a climate of disrespect for law and procedure. As a result, “don’t ask, don’t tell” quickly gained a reputation as a “hollow shell of a policy” and a “joke,” phrases that were repeatedly heard in a string of separate interviews. Said one soldier in 2004, “ ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ became a punch line in the military.” The policy became the butt of jokes and increased the frequency with which discussion and jokes about gay issues occurred. “It was almost a daily occurrence,” he said, adding that even he had used the name of the policy as shorthand. People would ask simple questions such as, “Where are you going tonight?” and the retort would be, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Or two men would appear together and someone would point and say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”24